The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a published order Tuesday vacating a directive that had been withholding the issuance of a mandate in the civil rights case *Hershey v. City of Bossier City*, allowing the appeals court's ruling to take full effect.
The brief order, filed Feb. 5, 2026, in case No. 21-30754, states simply that "[t]he order withholding issuance of the mandate in this appeal is VACATED." The directive was entered at the direction of the court by Clerk Lyle W. Cayce.
The case centers on Richard Hershey's civil rights lawsuit against the City of Bossier City and multiple law enforcement defendants, including Bobby Gilbert in his individual capacity and as Deputy Marshal, along with Daniel Stoll, David Smith, Tyshon Harvey, and Eugene Tucker. The lawsuit originated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana under case number 5:21-CV-460.
A mandate is the formal order from an appeals court that directs a lower court to take specific action following an appellate decision. When an appeals court withholds a mandate, it typically indicates ongoing procedural matters or potential further review. The vacation of such an order signals that any impediments to the mandate's issuance have been resolved.
The procedural significance of Tuesday's order extends beyond the immediate case. Circuit Judge James C. Ho issued a separate statement "respecting the issuance of the mandate," though the full text of his commentary was not included in the available court documents. Judge Ho referenced what he characterized as "regrettable rulings" by the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc that "should deeply trouble every person of faith."
In his statement, Judge Ho cited three cases: *Morgan v. Swanson* (5th Cir. 2011), and two decisions in *Villarreal v. City of Laredo* from 2024. The *Morgan* case, decided in 659 F.3d 359, and the *Villarreal* decisions at 94 F.4th 374 and 134 F.4th 273, appear to form a pattern of concern for the circuit judge regarding religious liberty issues.
The underlying *Hershey* case represents the type of civil rights litigation commonly brought under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, which allows individuals to sue state and local officials for constitutional violations. Such cases typically involve allegations of excessive force, unlawful detention, or other civil rights violations by law enforcement personnel.
The inclusion of both individual and official capacity claims against Deputy Marshal Gilbert suggests the lawsuit may involve qualified immunity issues, a legal doctrine that shields government officials from civil liability unless they violated clearly established constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has been actively reviewing qualified immunity cases in recent years, making such litigation particularly significant for establishing precedent.
The Western District of Louisiana, where the case originated, covers a large geographic area including cities like Shreveport and Bossier City. Federal civil rights cases in this district often involve complex questions about police conduct and municipal liability, particularly when multiple defendants are named as in the *Hershey* case.
The timing of the mandate's release, coming more than four years after the initial 2021 filing, suggests the case may have involved extensive litigation and appeals. Civil rights cases often require lengthy discovery periods and complex legal analysis, particularly when they involve multiple defendants and various theories of liability.
Judge Ho's commentary accompanying the mandate issuance indicates broader concerns about the Fifth Circuit's approach to religious liberty cases. His reference to en banc decisions suggests these were cases decided by the full circuit court rather than a typical three-judge panel, indicating their precedential significance.
The vacation of the withholding order means that whatever ruling the Fifth Circuit issued in the *Hershey* case will now take effect, requiring action by the district court. This could involve further proceedings, enforcement of a judgment, or implementation of other relief ordered by the appeals court.
For practitioners handling civil rights litigation in the Fifth Circuit, the case serves as a reminder of the procedural complexities that can arise in appeals involving multiple defendants and constitutional claims. The involvement of both municipal and individual defendants creates additional layers of legal analysis regarding liability theories and potential remedies.
The case also highlights ongoing tensions within the Fifth Circuit regarding religious liberty jurisprudence, as evidenced by Judge Ho's pointed commentary. These tensions may influence how future civil rights cases involving religious freedom claims are decided within the circuit.
Moving forward, the district court will need to implement whatever directives the Fifth Circuit provided in its underlying decision. The lengthy timeline of the case suggests that resolution of the underlying claims against Bossier City and the individual defendants may still be pending, making the mandate's issuance a crucial step toward final resolution of Hershey's civil rights claims.